Google and Facebook are Already Accused of Breaking GDPR Laws

Privacy group noyb.eu is accusing Google, Facebook, and others of utilizing forced consent after the General Data Protection Regulation went into effect at midnight. They say accounts are getting blocked if the user doesn't agree to the use of their data. Seeing as this is the EU, and they like to enforce lots of regulations, I would have to say it wouldn't surprise me if they rule against the alleged culprits. Also, if the EU does rule against them the fines could total up to $7B combined. I'm breaking out the popcorn because this one is going to be fun! Read the complaint here.

“Facebook has even blocked accounts of users who have not given consent. In the end, users only had the choice to delete the account or hit the “agree” button–that’s not a free choice, it more reminds of a North Korean election process,” Max Schrems, the chair of noyb.eu, said.

“Facebook has even blocked accounts of users who have not given consent. In the end, users only had the choice to delete the account or hit the “agree” button–that’s not a free choice, it more reminds of a North Korean election process,” Max Schrems, the chair of noyb.eu, said.

Click to expand...

That is plenty of free choice. Either use it, or don't. Go find a product you agree with and use it instead.

If you have read "Yahoo" AKA Oath's terms of service it goes that way as well. You can't sue them, arbitration only. And they get to monitor your communications and sell that data to 3rd parties. (Similar to gmail.)

Meh... to be expected. The GDRP was an idea thought up under honest intentions, but the actual creation and implementation was done by politicians who have no clue what that implementation entails.

There is a choice: use these services or don't. When all is said and done, Google and Facebook aren't air or water. You don't *need* them to use the internet, and people don't have a right to use them.

If you have read "Yahoo" AKA Oath's terms of service it goes that way as well. You can't sue them, arbitration only. And they get to monitor your communications and sell that data to 3rd parties. (Similar to gmail.)

I'm not happy about that.

Click to expand...

They also explicitly say they will rifle through your attachments and financial information. They just got their hands slapped by the Canadian government because they broke PIPEDA (primarily because of the harvesting of your contact list, which is a _big_ no-no.) I hated giving up my Rogers address after over 20 years but that's they way things go. I use a hosting service now.

Well... Europe is trying to discourage a business model where the user is the product.

Privacy is important in Europe. don't like it, close business and go elsewhere.

That or develop a business model where you can offer your services without spying on everyone.

We already know how things work with these companies thanks to Cambridge Analytica scandal.

Furthermore when these big companies turn almost in monopolies, buying out or destroying any competition, you got no option. That is simply wrong.

Click to expand...

That's right there are no options for social media places to communicate... like Reddit, like local forums, like text messaging... crap I think I ruined my example of what doesn't exist.

And there are clearly no other search alternatives interested in your business without collecting your data... like duckduckgo... dammit I did it again!

There ARE options. And if a company like Facebook or Google buys them it's because they accepted the offer to be purchased. They are not selling their companies at gunpoint they are selling them for mountains of cash.

What these companies do is take your information and aggregate commercials/ads to the users based on the profiles built on what the users consume or do. That's it. Nothing else. You search for Breast Pumps you get adds for breast pumps and associated products. you search for pickup trucks you get adds for pickup trucks. It's really that damn simple. if you like facebook content about video games you get facebook advertisement about... video games!! OH THE HORROR!!!

Yes Cabridge Anilytica found ways to use the system for nefarious means and people being stupid gave them full rights to more of their data than they thought. BUT DAMMIT THAT ISN'T THE FAULT OF FACEBOOK. (RIGHT Otherwise it's the fault of gun manufacturers that people shoot each other.. Or maybe bullet makers? )

You want to fix this problem. Prevent games from having out of session access to user data. Put it in a safe space on the Facebook servers and don't let personal data leave it. Facebook HAS the infrastructure to do this. Then you take the ownership of the data, keep it in house, AND still let users play their facebook games. Win win?

That's right there are no options for social media places to communicate... like Reddit, like local forums, like text messaging... crap I think I ruined my example of what doesn't exist.

And there are clearly no other search alternatives interested in your business without collecting your data... like duckduckgo... dammit I did it again!

There ARE options. And if a company like Facebook or Google buys them it's because they accepted the offer to be purchased. They are not selling their companies at gunpoint they are selling them for mountains of cash.

What these companies do is take your information and aggregate commercials/ads to the users based on the profiles built on what the users consume or do. That's it. Nothing else. You search for Breast Pumps you get adds for breast pumps and associated products. you search for pickup trucks you get adds for pickup trucks. It's really that damn simple. if you like facebook content about video games you get facebook advertisement about... video games!! OH THE HORROR!!!

Yes Cabridge Anilytica found ways to use the system for nefarious means and people being stupid gave them full rights to more of their data than they thought. BUT DAMMIT THAT ISN'T THE FAULT OF FACEBOOK. (RIGHT Otherwise it's the fault of gun manufacturers that people shoot each other.. Or maybe bullet makers? )

Click to expand...

If you think there are options you are ignoring the differences between all the services you listed the concept of critical mass, or social media for that matter.
Name a single real competitor for Facebook. You can't, period. And after acquiring Whatsapp and LYING to regulators about data integration from the service Facebook is trying to kill Snapshat.

Yes the companies are purchased... good for them. That does not change anything,; Europe wants privacy, deal with it or close doors in Europe.
Making something free does not mean anything is Ok. There is no excuse for the amount of info that Facebook provided for CA and others. Things need to change.

Abuse of information is not novel, many people don't know or don't want to know how cozy IBM and its US workers were with Germany even the first years of WWII when they used those nice IBM mainframes and US workers to track every single jew.
Any government will abuse data by default, don't make it easy for corporations too. That's the last thing we need.

That being said... I think GDPR albeit necessary is not the right approach.
Regulate HOW MUCH of their revenue companies can spend on marketing and all the privacy problem will die due to lack of funds.
Maybe then companies could begin prioritizing quality over marketing.

Well... Europe is trying to discourage a business model where the user is the product.

Privacy is important in Europe. don't like it, close business and go elsewhere.

Click to expand...

And that seems to be exactly what they are doing just on an individual basis. They're "going elsewhere" for individuals who dont want to use their product as the business model they set up. It is the ultimate in chouce for the user, instead of the business going away for everyone even those that do not care if their data is being used as a comodity

And that seems to be exactly what they are doing just on an individual basis. They're "going elsewhere" for individuals who dont want to use their product as the business model they set up. It is the ultimate in chouce for the user, instead of the business going away for everyone even those that do not care if their data is being used as a comodity

Click to expand...

Except that is not what the law says.

There are good reasons for protecting people from themselves.

You don't want some asshole drunk speeding on a street lose control of the car and kill your children.

That is an extreme, but that is why society as a whole is regulated. Because it does not matter if some don't care, this is for the greater good. And not versus some less than bright dude.... It is against corporations that will go to any lengths for the profits if left unchecked.

Many don't care as long as they can be lazy and enjoy their shiny toys... Well, some know better.

Still waiting on Microsoft to be forced to provide a working telemetry opt out in W10. That would solve one of the biggest gotchas holding people back from upgrading.

Click to expand...

Not going to happen, telemetry is essential to software development these days and is integrated into every single online service/app/whatever you currently use. And it's not stopping people from upgrading... I think the issues with the updates are a far bigger concern than telemetry.

This forum simultaneously hates Google for controlling speech and pushing Orwellian data polices & control mechanisms on their platform and then supports them when they want to offer their users blanket ultimatums pushing Orwellian data polices & control mechanisms on their platform.

This forum simultaneously hates Google for controlling speech and pushing Orwellian data polices & control mechanisms on their platform and then supports them when they want to offer their users blanket ultimatums pushing Orwellian data polices & control mechanisms on their platform.

Looks like some people think you can have you cake and eat it,

(as long as it's not baked by the wrong people of course )

Click to expand...

You can't judge the entire form by different peoples posts. That's silly. There are dissenters and supporters of both sides of the conversation. What bugs me is people thinking. "Google is doing nothing with my search... Ooo look boobies." meanwhile Google stats delivering sexy adds to the same person and they go. "Wait why is google doing this?" When they realize because their wife calls them a shit heel they go. "Ohhhh... well I don't want THAT." But if it were adds about pickup trucks that would have been cool and no issue.

The problem here is the end user not realizing. I've been telling people for YEARS that they need to lock down their facebook accounts. Some have. Most don't because they figure.. "Meh what can it hurt." Then they are manipulated into believing stupid shit and make bad choices... only THEN do they look to hold anyone else accountable but themselves.

You don't want some asshole drunk speeding on a street lose control of the car and kill your children.

That is an extreme, but that is why society as a whole is regulated. Because it does not matter if some don't care, this is for the greater good. And not versus some less than bright dude.... It is against corporations that will go to any lengths for the profits if left unchecked.

Click to expand...

Yes a very much extreme case, however your example doesn't protect people from themselves, but protects everyone else from this person. Now sure you could make a similar argument with drug use fitting this criterion, but lets be honest here we need to protect people from allowing their surfing habits to be known? Meanwhile you have cities like London who literally watch every square cm of street with cameras, yay for personal privacy!!!

I would really love to hear an argument on a good reason why protecting people from themselves IN THIS CASE.

But I say fine, since all search engines work on the same manner, just absolutely pull out of Europe, no search engine use for anyone in Europe. See how far that works out.

That's right there are no options for social media places to communicate... like Reddit, like local forums, like text messaging... crap I think I ruined my example of what doesn't exist.

And there are clearly no other search alternatives interested in your business without collecting your data... like duckduckgo... dammit I did it again!

There ARE options. And if a company like Facebook or Google buys them it's because they accepted the offer to be purchased. They are not selling their companies at gunpoint they are selling them for mountains of cash.

What these companies do is take your information and aggregate commercials/ads to the users based on the profiles built on what the users consume or do. That's it. Nothing else. You search for Breast Pumps you get adds for breast pumps and associated products. you search for pickup trucks you get adds for pickup trucks. It's really that damn simple. if you like facebook content about video games you get facebook advertisement about... video games!! OH THE HORROR!!!

Yes Cabridge Anilytica found ways to use the system for nefarious means and people being stupid gave them full rights to more of their data than they thought. BUT DAMMIT THAT ISN'T THE FAULT OF FACEBOOK. (RIGHT Otherwise it's the fault of gun manufacturers that people shoot each other.. Or maybe bullet makers? )

You want to fix this problem. Prevent games from having out of session access to user data. Put it in a safe space on the Facebook servers and don't let personal data leave it. Facebook HAS the infrastructure to do this. Then you take the ownership of the data, keep it in house, AND still let users play their facebook games. Win win?

Click to expand...

They just don't use it to target ads at you. They also SELL your data to 3rd party marketers which is unscrupulous because your data could be sensitive.

We discussed the nuclear option.. and had it ready. Thankfully I think we'll be ok.

Users trying to read the NY Daily News, say, or the Chicago Tribune – the third-biggest US daily newspaper – from a location within the EU have been blocked from visiting their websites due to new data protection laws.

Visitors in the bloc trying to load articles from the Tribune, or stablemates the Los Angeles Times – the fifth-biggest daily – and the Orlando Sentinel are shown the same error message from publisher Tronc.
[...]
Much-loved American public radio org NPR, meanwhile, decided to provide another option: send anyone who doesn't agree to cookies and the like for personalised content to a plain text site – or back in time to 1996.
[...]
That includes Pinterest-owned Instapaper – the app to save and read articles – this week announced it would be unavailable for users in the EU "as it makes changes" in light of GDPR.
[...]
Email unsubscribing service Unroll.Me has also said it is stopping its services for EU residents on 23 May – a move it says is temporary until it can be sure it is compliant.
[...]
Meanwhile, some firms have decided to call it a day: social media reputation score site Klout went kaput today, with its owner deciding that shuttering it was the best route to compliance.
[...]

If you have read "Yahoo" AKA Oath's terms of service it goes that way as well. You can't sue them, arbitration only. And they get to monitor your communications and sell that data to 3rd parties. (Similar to gmail.)

I have heard from many lawyers and that being in the terms of service is a joke. It's basically a first line of defense. "Our terms of service says you can sue is." Lawyer "Ah but I am." Them "But... " Judge "you're being sued deal with it."

They just don't use it to target ads at you. They also SELL your data to 3rd party marketers which is unscrupulous because your data could be sensitive.

Click to expand...

That's just it they never (Facebook here in the most recent case with the Russian company.) did SELL the data to anyone. The company made a game. The game asked for all the personal access using Facebooks API, and the user said... "Yea sure whatever gimmie the quiz." And BOOM facemageddon.

If someone came up to you on the street and said. "Hey I would like you to take a personal quiz and it will tell you your spirit animal." You go.. "OK SURE!" They go.. "First let me just copy all of your contacts and their information from your cell phone... it lets us build a star diagram of your personality." you.. "Uhhh... well I guess." Them "And I need a copy of all of the pictures on your phone too. This is so we can align the position of the crystals based on your preferences and photogenic qualities." You go.. "Well.. I mean.. " Them.. "Now just click ok and give us full rights to all of the data on your phone and we will have your Spirit animal ready to go!" You... "Well.. sure... " Them "You're a bear, you're noble and good and smart and you smell good" You.. "Hey that felt good.. thanks!"

This is what happened.. Facebook didn't get money out of this (unless they charge games/quizzes to do this.). They just handed the quiz page all of your data because you said... "Hey Facebook give them everything ok?"

While I'm against big companies doing bad things. IF they gave someone access o something that I SAID to give them access to I FAIL to see how Facebook is responsible for doing what I asked them to do.

Where I think they ARE at fault is how they build meta data for everyone NOT on Facebook. THAT is creepy as EFF.

You can't judge the entire form by different peoples posts. That's silly. There are dissenters and supporters of both sides of the conversation.

Click to expand...

My post was kind of tongue in cheek

There are people's who believe a company can do what it likes even if that ends up making it a monopoly, and then as soon as it's a monopoly the same people believe that is not the spirit of the free market. But regulation is not the answer using another service is... But then, you can't use another service if there aren't any others "because regulation strangles the free market" so the eventual monopoly that arises creates a one or two company choice paradigm. Real choice is eventually non existent, it's just a game of tennis and your the ball.

People 'seem' to be arguing for the thing they dislike even if it contradicts their other belief. It's like an infinite loop they can't break out of.

What bugs me is people thinking. "Google is doing nothing with my search.. The problem here is the end user not realizing. I've been telling people for YEARS that they need to lock down their facebook accounts. Some have. Most don't because they figure.. "Meh what can it hurt." Then they are manipulated into believing stupid shit and make bad choices... only THEN do they look to hold anyone else accountable but themselves.

Click to expand...

Yea, people do need to take responsibility for their own actions. But these companies have successfully tiptoed forward with ever increasing terms and conditions. Google, Fecesbook etc.. do make that low hanging fruit look mighty tasty and easy to access given the historical difficulties associated with maintaining all the services a traditional computerphobe would struggle to use on a regular desktop computer. I do agree with the sentiment that you should use another service ultimately .. if a tangible one even exists but that's back to my first point.

Now if we can just prove that these companies created cumbersome repetitive permissions checks to make users just OK through them without reading or digesting them because they were so ubiquitous and seemingly harmless.. THEN we have a case because it was an socially engineered attack at that point. THAT is the real thing that needs to be addressed.

Don't like the service? Don't use it. This will result in the loss of the service to those who are ok with it, so rather than those people who don't agree to the terms not using it, they want to make it illegal for anyone to use it. That is much like the egg laws passed in cali and a few other states, 90% of eggs sold were conventional eggs, only 10% of the market were cage free eggs, so anyone who wanted cage free eggs could buy them at their own will. However they passed a law that eggs HAD to be cage free. That doesn't mean people now suddenly all get cage free eggs, that just means you are removing an options for people who were fine with caged eggs and large price rise, so now many people just don't get eggs, along with a number of cheaper restaurants cutting out eggs, such as in fried rice.

""I call it a vote by paradox," said Jayson Lusk, an agricultural economist at Purdue University in Indiana who has studied the effects of the California law.

"These cage-free eggs were available in the grocery store, and, at the time, less than 10 percent of market share was cage-free. Why people banned something they were routinely buying in a grocery store, I don’t know," he said. "It does act something like an unfunded mandate. We have asked farmers to provide something that we as consumers have not funded by buying that product.""

There are untold number of other alternatives to Facebook to those asking in here, you just don't want to use them. they range from ad based like FB to subscription based focused on privacy with zero ads, like Vero. Again, if you don't like the service FB is offering, put your money where your mouth is and support another platform. Makes me think back a few years when fakes posts went around FB of FB going subscription based only without ads etc, people flipped their shit, so many people calling everyone on their lists to comment on the petition to keep FB free. No matter what people SAY, the model FB uses is the one that people SUPPORT.

Disclosure: I don't like FB, nor use it, I have an account to keep track of local car meets and that's it. I also only buy free roaming, organic eggs, local if possible.

You don't want some asshole drunk speeding on a street lose control of the car and kill your children.

That is an extreme, but that is why society as a whole is regulated. Because it does not matter if some don't care, this is for the greater good. And not versus some less than bright dude.... It is against corporations that will go to any lengths for the profits if left unchecked.

Many don't care as long as they can be lazy and enjoy their shiny toys... Well, some know better.

Click to expand...

Well, this *is* 'Murika, where if it kills you, it's your fault, just as long as the company makes a profit.

But I say fine, since all search engines work on the same manner, just absolutely pull out of Europe, no search engine use for anyone in Europe. See how far that works out.

Click to expand...

In about ten minutes after they pull out, some coder in Finland will publish the best and most private search engine ever made, will provide it for free, and Europe will be happy.

Meanwhile, Google & Facebook will lobby the US government to close international internet to all US users, then lass laws REQUIRING us to give up ALL our private information,and have Alexa/Google Voice-like devices installed everywhere we go. Not to mention gov't-mandated account debuts for Facebook & Google.

Still waiting on Microsoft to be forced to provide a working telemetry opt out in W10. That would solve one of the biggest gotchas holding people back from upgrading.

Click to expand...

Although I'm sure someone will argue with me on the "legalness" but, LTSB is the closest you can get right now. So far I'm enjoying it, W10 has a lot of under the hood upgrades that seem to be working out. Problem is.. I want my operating system to be an operating system... not an advertising platform that watches my porn with me.

if Google and Facebook, et al, leave Europe..then GREAT. Another competitor that complies with EU laws will fill up the void, and will eventually beat out Google and Facebook in the US with their stronger respect for privacy. ( or at least, force Google and Facebook to do the same)

unless you have business interests in these firms, then it's a win-win-win

Well... Europe is trying to discourage a business model where the user is the product.

Privacy is important in Europe. don't like it, close business and go elsewhere.

That or develop a business model where you can offer your services without spying on everyone.

We already know how things work with these companies thanks to Cambridge Analytica scandal.

Furthermore when these big companies turn almost in monopolies, buying out or destroying any competition, you got no option. That is simply wrong.

Click to expand...

That's Bullshit. privacy isn't important in Europe. Europe is just butt hurt their companies failed to deliver products people wanted to use, and since they are running out of the ability to tax their own citizens they have devised a law to tax American companies billions all under the ruse that its about privacy.